D&D 5E What the Monster Manual is missing

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Medium

What about the Caesar Salad?

 

[Sir Brennen]

I want a brief description of the monster - I don't always (or even very often) want to show my players a picture, and I certainly don't want to repeatedly show the same picture every time they meet a monster of a given type. A couple of sentences would have sufficed, but to have nothing... I wouldn't even mind if the picture and the description contradicted each other somewhat (for example, there are many approaches in fantasy to the humble Orc), but to give us nothing...

They gave you a picture as a description. If you don't want to show your players the picture, what's stopping you from looking at the picture and describing it to them? Like, in your own words. To me that's part of the DM's job. I personally don't want space taken up with "here's a text description of the picture you're looking at.."

 

[Grainger]

They gave you a picture as a description. If you don't want to show your players the picture, what's stopping you from looking at the picture and describing it to them? Like, in your own words. To me that's part of the DM's job. I personally don't want space taken up with "here's a text description of the picture you're looking at.."

I knew someone would say this!

1. Because an image is only one artist's interpretation of a creature. Look at all the different ways to draw, say a starry night. If you only had Van Gogh's (brilliant) image of a starry night to go on (and had never seen one) could you describe it, except on his terms? In my view the MM art is extremely stylised - nothing wrong with that, but I'd rather have something far more neutral to go on. Even a very brief text description can be more definitive, in my view. I'm only asking for two or three sentences, at most.

2. It's just the way my brain works. I like pictures to help me skim through and select monsters, but I prefer a text description to help me comprehend the essence of the monster. I can parse a text description as a general description of the species much faster.

 

[Grainger]

To put it another way: if I look at an image of the monster, I need to think "what is unique, if anything, about the appearance of this particular humanoid/roaring hulk/lizardy thing" (and, not knowing anything about many of the 5e monsters, it's actually a real puzzler in some cases). The alternative is reading two sentences and coming up with an evocative description of my own. For me, the first is hard work, the second is easier, faster, and much more creative.

It would have been minimal work (and taken up minimal space) to do what I'm asking, and all the "pictures are better" people could skip that part of the description, particularly if it was in a standard position for each entry.

 

[Grainger]

One more thing about this: the omission of a description in this case also means no notes on monster size. I know there's a size category, but roughly how tall is an Ogre? OK, in that particular case I can improvise from prior knowledge, but I shouldn't have to - and what about the hundreds of monsters I've never heard of. Again, I know the DM can improvise (and in my view he/she should), but I'd still like a standard, definitive description for each monster, as I could use this in most cases, and it would be one less thing to remember ("did I say that Goblins were as tall as Hobbits or Dwarves?", etc.).

 

[MonsterEnvy]

One more thing about this: the omission of a description in this case also means no notes on monster size. I know there's a size category, but roughly how tall is an Ogre? OK, in that particular case I can improvise from prior knowledge, but I shouldn't have to - and what about the hundreds of monsters I've never heard of. Again, I know the DM can improvise (and in my view he/she should), but I'd still like a standard, definitive description for each monster, as I could use this in most cases, and it would be one less thing to remember ("did I say that Goblins were as tall as Hobbits or Dwarves?", etc.).

Ogre's are described as 8ft tall in the book. I think I saw the orge page and that was stated.

 

[Grainger]

Ogre's are described as 8ft tall in the book. I think I saw the orge page and that was stated.

Oh, fair enough - my bad, if that's the case. I didn't see it, but I'll check again.

 

[Grainger]

Ogre's are described as 8ft tall in the book. I think I saw the orge page and that was stated.

You're right - but they are stated as being between 9 and 10 feet tall.

It's Trolls I was thinking about... they don't have a height stated (that I can see), or any other physical description. This entry is a case in point: it should mention that they are skinny/wiry in build, as that's a unique thing about the troll; I wouldn't pull that out of the picture if I didn't already know that - the individual shown is slim, but not especially wiry.

 

[Grainger]

As a quick update to this... some monsters do have a description (e.g. the Stirge has a very good one). Most of the multi-page monsters also have descriptions (e.g. the Hobgoblin and Orc). It seems an odd hotch-potch (the Goblin doesn't get anything beyond "small"). While we clearly don't need a description for something like a giant crab (although a size indicator might be good, to help scale it against other giant creatures), others - which are specific to D&D, or where D&D has a unique take, like the troll - are lacking IMO.